linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator after the loop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 26 Feb 2022 15:03:09 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jakob <jakobkoschel@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator
 after the loop

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 2:14 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> Could gcc follow the clang behavior then and skip the warning and
> sanitizer for this case when -fno-strict-overflow or -fwrapv are used?

Well, for the kernel, that horse has already left the barn, and we'd
have to use -Wno-shift-negative-value anyway.

But yes, from a sanity standpoint, it would be good to shut that
warning up automatically if compiling for a 2's complement machine (ie
"all of them") with -fwrapv.

Considering that gcc doesn't support any non-2's-complement machines
anyway afaik, and that the C standards people are also fixing the
standard, and gcc has never done anything odd in this area in the
first place, I think the warning is probably best removed entirely.
But we'll have to do it manually for the existing situation.

          Linus